It seems to me that Freud and Jung et al. seem to be taken much, much more seriously in literary analysis than they are in the actual world of psychiatry and psychology. You don't find too many working psychiatrists, counselors or people doing research in psychology who even mention them in their work. Despite this, literary criticism doesn't seem to be able to function without Freud.
There have been times when I read older biographies built on such premises and I find myself wanting to shake the authors. "No, you fools! Can't you see that so-and-so had bipolar disorder, or was using too many cosmetics and popular remedies containing mercury, or had hormonally-triggered migraines, or just really wanted to get married and leave home?"
I do see Freud's utility, but I think the literary world needs to widen its parameters a tad to include more recent ideas of how the brain and human psychology work. Freud has been dead for nearly 70 years, and the world of ideas about the mind has moved on in the meantime. Today's thinkers may be standing on the shoulders of giants, but they are standing, and why should literary criticism ignore them?
Freud and literature
Date: 2008-12-21 10:45 pm (UTC)There have been times when I read older biographies built on such premises and I find myself wanting to shake the authors. "No, you fools! Can't you see that so-and-so had bipolar disorder, or was using too many cosmetics and popular remedies containing mercury, or had hormonally-triggered migraines, or just really wanted to get married and leave home?"
I do see Freud's utility, but I think the literary world needs to widen its parameters a tad to include more recent ideas of how the brain and human psychology work. Freud has been dead for nearly 70 years, and the world of ideas about the mind has moved on in the meantime. Today's thinkers may be standing on the shoulders of giants, but they are standing, and why should literary criticism ignore them?